Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Jody Watley and other dancers

I loved that song. Jody writes about it here including who directed the video (he's now one of the biggest directors in Hollywood).

Jody was a real music video presence -- across the board. She was one of the few artists of color that MTV would play regularly.

And she made such great music (she still does -- and "Nightlife" brought her another hit last year).

For me, it will always be "Looking For A New Love" when I think of Jody.

Because, like most people, popular tunes are the soundtrack to my life.

I had just gone through a bitter break up. And I loved Jody's spirit of you ain't taking my joy.

Instead, she's looking for a new love, a new love, yeah, yeah, yeah! And trying to remember where she put her keys. :D

I loved her dance moves. She was so sleek and so strong.

We had some great dancers back then including Janet Jackson, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Paula Abdul, Stevie Nicks, Chico DeBarge and, most of all, Jody.

And I'm not joking on Stevie Nicks. She's a rock and roller but she can dance. Two friends and I studied her "Talk To Me" video forever to get those dance steps down and then we'd break them out at any and every party.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's killing of
civilians in Falluja gets noticed by Human Rights Watch, Barack gives a
speech on Afghanistan, three senators object to an "end date" for war,
Eric Shinseki was not right about the Iraq War, we note a few people who
were right about the illegal war, but Shinseki isn't one of them, and
much more.

Early last week, we were noting how the world press looks the other way
as Iraq's chief thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki kills Iraqi
civilians. He's long labeled Falluja -- where he is deeply unpopular --
a city where 'terrorists' have a foothold. At the end of December, he
began assaulting Anbar Province (whose big cities include Falluja and
Ramadi), a Sunni dominant province which fueled the long standing
charges that Shi'ite Nouri targets the Sunni population.Labeling Falluja a hot bed of terrorism, Nouri began bombing it.Falluja is a major city. It has a huge population.Nouri began bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja at the start of January.This bombing continues all these months later.Even if you believe there are 'terrorists' in Falluja, you are not allowed to kill civilians.This is what is known as "collective punishment." It is a legally
defined War Crime and has been for decades. The US government
recognizes it as a War Crime in various laws and treaties.Nouri is committing War Crimes.Each day people are injured and/or killed.Civilians.And no one in the US government speaks out, the western press offers no
fiery editorials. At one or three dead a day, it doesn't apparently
seem that much. But as the days turn to weeks and as the weeks turn to
months, the tolls of the dead and wounded add up.Nouri's also bombed hospitals in Falluja repeatedly. This too is a War Crime.And yet, all we get is silence.

Every day the death and wounded toll grows higher. NINA speaks
with Falluja Teaching Hospital's Dr. Ahmed al-Shami who explains at
least 461 civilians have been killed in the last five months and 1466
injured from these bombings:

Al-Shami told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that / 461 /
civilians, 18% of them children, and 11 % women were killed, adding
that the number of wounded reached / 1466 / people, 19% of them
children, and 17 % of them women .

Iraqi
government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar
since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital
with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today.
The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire
weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which
would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.

Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on
residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an
intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks
have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to
flee.

“The government has been firing wildly into Fallujah’s residential
neighborhoods for more than four months, and ramped up its attacks in
May,” said Fred Abrahams,
special adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This reckless disregard for
civilians is deadly for people caught between government forces and
opposition groups.”The armed groups fighting against government forces in Anbar, including
ISIS, say they have executed captured Iraqi soldiers. ISIS has also
claimed responsibility for suicide and car bomb attacks against civilian
targets in other parts of Iraq in response to the assault on Fallujah.
Human Rights Watch has found that ISIS abuses probably amount to crimes against humanity.

In Fallujah, ISIS has planted improvised explosive devices along the
main highway and other parts of city, and is operating prisons in
Fallujah and elsewhere, Fallujah residents said.

Six witnesses Human Rights Watch interviewed, three of them hospital
staff, gave credible accounts of repeated strikes by government forces
on Fallujah’s main hospital since January that have severely damaged
buildings and injured patients and medical staff. An Iraqi government
security officer based in Anbar, who spoke to Human Rights Watch on
condition of anonymity, said government forces have targeted the
hospital with mortars and artillery on 16 separate occasions.

The three hospital employees said mortar shells and projectiles had at
various times struck the emergency room, the intensive care unit, the
central air conditioning unit, a trailer that housed Bangladeshi
hospital staff, and other parts of the hospital. The attacks injured
four Bangladeshi workers, three Iraqi doctors, and an unknown number of
patients, they said.

Such accounts of repeated strikes over four months, corroborated by
photographs of apparent damage to the hospital, strongly indicate the
hospital has been targeted, Human Rights Watch said.

Two witnesses to the hospital attacks, one of them a hospital employee,
said that non-ISIS anti-government fighters were guarding the hospital
and that wounded fighters were receiving treatment there. The
Anbar-based government security official said that, according to
information he received through his work and from hospital staff, ISIS
has partly taken over the hospital, using the second floor to treat
wounded fighters and administrative offices to detain high-level local
officials.

All hospitals, whether civilian or military, are specially protected
under the laws of war. They may not be targeted, even if being used to
treat enemy fighters. Under customary international law applicable to
the fighting in Anbar, hospitals remain protected unless they are used
to commit hostile acts that are outside their humanitarian function.
Even then, they are only subject to attack after a warning has been
given setting a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has gone
unheeded. Armed groups should not occupy or use medical facilities.

Witnesses and residents of Fallujah also described indiscriminate
mortar and rocket attacks that have killed civilians, and damaged or
destroyed homes, at least two mosques, and one school that were not
being used for military purposes.

Accounts from witnesses, residents and the government security official
indicate that, since the beginning of May, these indiscriminate
government attacks have included the use of barrel bombs, dropped from
helicopters, on populated areas of Fallujah. The Anbar-based security
official said the army has been using barrel bombs since about May 2 in
Fallujah, as well as in the towns of Garma, Saqlawiyya, Ibrahim Ibn Ali,
and surrounding areas. “They started using them [barrel bombs] because
they want to cause as much destruction as possible,” he said. “My
government … decided to destroy the city instead of trying to invade
it.”

At today's State Dept press briefing, the cowardly press refused to ask
about the HRW report. The State Dept is over the US mission in Iraq.
But the cowardly reporters didn't think the above was anything to ask
about.

We'll come back to Iraq. Right now, we're noting a speech. Today, US
President Barack Obama gave a speech about the US 'withdrawal' from
Afghanistan. The White House has video here and text here.

Excerpt:

US President Barack Obama: The United States did not seek this fight. We went into Afghanistan
out of necessity, after our nation was attacked by al Qaeda on September
11th, 2001. We went to war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies
with the strong support of the American people and their representatives
in Congress; with the international community and our NATO allies; and
with the Afghan people, who welcomed the opportunity of a life free from
the dark tyranny of extremism. We have now been in Afghanistan longer than many Americans expected.
But make no mistake -- thanks to the skill and sacrifice of our troops,
diplomats, and intelligence professionals, we have struck significant
blows against al Qaeda’s leadership, we have eliminated Osama bin
Laden, and we have prevented Afghanistan from being used to launch
attacks against our homeland. We have also supported the Afghan people
as they continue the hard work of building a democracy. We’ve extended
more opportunities to their people, including women and girls. And
we’ve helped train and equip their own security forces.Now we’re finishing the job we started. Over the last several years,
we’ve worked to transition security responsibilities to the Afghans.
One year ago, Afghan forces assumed the lead for combat operations.
Since then, they’ve continued to grow in size and in strength, while
making huge sacrifices for their country. This transition has allowed
us to steadily draw down our own forces -- from a peak of 100,000 U.S.
troops, to roughly 32,000 today.

2014, therefore, is a pivotal year. Together with our allies and the
Afghan government, we have agreed that this is the year we will
conclude our combat mission in Afghanistan. This is also a year of
political transition in Afghanistan. Earlier this spring, Afghans
turned out in the millions to vote in the first round of their
presidential election -- defying threats in order to determine their own
destiny. And in just over two weeks, they will vote for their next
President, and Afghanistan will see its first democratic transfer of
power in history.

He lies so much:

"The United States did not seek this fight. We went into Afghanistan
out of necessity, after our nation was attacked by al Qaeda on September
11th, 2001.:?

The Taliban did not attack the US on 9-11. The Taliban was the
government of Afghanistan. The country was supposedly harboring Osama
bin Laden. The US government wanted him handed over. The response was
to provide whatever proof or support for the US government's claim that
bin Laden was responsible. Colin Powell, among others, insisted the
proof would be provided . . . after. Afghanistan's government refused
to hand bin Laden over without proof. So the US government declared
war.

That is the brief overview of what took place.

Barack's speech was yet another snooze button for the Nobel Peace Prize
winning War Hawk. He'll end that Afghanistan War soon -- but soon never
comes.

Now the world learns that the end of the Afghanistan War won't be this year.

Paul D. Shinkman (US News & World Reports) offers, "The
remaining troops will likely be solely dedicated to training, advising
and supporting the fledgling Afghan military, and possibly carrying out
direct action missions only against al-Qaida forces there. Obama has
said all troops will withdraw by 2016, as his term winds down." Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) notes:But under Obama’s plan, the war would not end in 2014, despite at least
two years of administration implications it would. White House aides had
floated a proposal to withdraw all US troops from the country this
year, and in 2010, Joe Biden said that the US would be “totally out” of Afghanistan in 2014.

Aamer Madhani and Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) explain:Current Afghan President Hamid Karzai has declined to sign a security
agreement before he leaves office this summer, much to Obama's
consternation. The president bluntly warned Karzai earlier this year
that the "longer we go without a BSA, the more likely it will be that
any post-2014 U.S. mission will be smaller in scale and ambition."Both
of the leading candidates to replace Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah and
Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, however, have voiced their support of signing the
BSA if they are elected, Obama noted.

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain
(R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) released the
following statement on President Obama’s announcement on Afghanistan
today, which includes withdrawing all U.S. troops from the country by
the end of 2016:“The President’s decision to set an arbitrary date for the full
withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a monumental mistake and a
triumph of politics over strategy. This is a short-sighted decision that
will make it harder to end the war in Afghanistan responsibly.“The President came into office wanting to end the wars he inherited.
But wars do not end just because politicians say so. The President
appears to have learned nothing from the damage done by his previous
withdrawal announcements in Afghanistan and his disastrous decision to
withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq. Today’s announcement will embolden
our enemies and discourage our partners in Afghanistan and the region.
And regardless of anything the President says tomorrow at West Point,
his decision on Afghanistan will fuel the growing perception worldwide
that America is unreliable, distracted, and unwilling to lead.“The alternative was not war without end. It was a limited assistance
mission to help the Afghan Security Forces preserve momentum on the
battlefield and create conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict.
The achievement of this goal, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, should be determined by conditions on the ground, not by
the President’s concern for his legacy.“All wars end. The question is how they end. The war in Iraq has
ended in tragedy. And it is difficult to see how we can succeed in
Afghanistan when the President tells our enemies that our troops will
leave by a date certain whether they have achieved our goals or not.”

###

On the three senators, I'll note that non-endless war wars all come with
an end date. But there's a bigger issue no one appears willing to
address.

Barack imposed an end date on Iraq and now possibly on Afghanistan.

This was shocking to McCain in both cases. But there's a reason end dates were/are needed.

It is impossible for victory to be declared.

What the end date meant with Iraq is: The US lost. It would mean the same with Afghanistan.

And both wars were lost before they began.

But part of some people's problems with announcing end dates is that end dates are announced because "Victory!" can't be.

Turning to today's violence in Iraq -- in the ongoing war in Iraq, the
biggest death toll thus far comes from a suicide bomber in the Shorja
section of Baghdad. Reuters reports a suicide bomber took his own life in a central Baghdad mosque and took the lives of at least 19 other people. Xinhua notes the mosque was Abu al-Timan mosque. CNN explains, "The Abu al-Timan mosque is in a busy commercial neighborhood in the middle of Baghdad." BBC News notes, "The attack occurred as worshippers prepared to attend midday prayers in the Shorja district of the capital." Sakan Faraj (AFP) adds, "Security forces barred journalists from taking photographs or videos of
the aftermath of the scene, a common occurrence in the wake of deadly
violence in the capital."

Turning to the topic of oil and Nouri's boiling blood. He's in a snit
fit over something the Kurdistan Regional Government did. From Thursday's snapshot:

Marina Ottaway offers an
analysis for CNN which includes, "Elated by his victory, al-Maliki is
sounding uncompromising, and although he has declared that he is open to
work with any political party, he has made it clear that it would be
strictly on his own terms. For example, he has told the Kurdish party
that they are welcome in a government coalition as long as they accept
his interpretation of the constitution, thus renounce their ambition to
export oil independently." Apparently while preparing that analysis
today, Ottaway missed Sinan Salaheddin's Associated Press report which opens, "Iraq's self-ruled northern Kurdish region on Thursday started exporting
crude oil to the international market through the Turkish port of Ceyhan
despite objections from the central government in Baghdad, Turkey's
energy minister said."

Friday is also when the Kurdistan Regional Government issued the following:
Erbil, Kurdistan (KRG.org) - In line with its policy of implementing
the 2005 Constitution of Iraq and helping Iraq achieve its oil
production, export and revenue targets, the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) has completed the first sales of crude oil produced in
the Kurdistan Region and piped to the port of Ceyhan.
A tanker loaded with over one million barrels of crude oil departed
last night from Ceyhan towards Europe. This is the first of many such
sales of oil exported through the newly constructed pipeline in the
Kurdistan Region.
The revenue from the sales will be deposited in a KRG-controlled
account in Halkbank in Turkey and will be treated as part of the KRG’s
budgetary entitlement under Iraq’s revenue sharing and distribution as
defined under the 2005 Constitution of Iraq.
Meeting Iraq’s continued international UN obligations, five percent of
the sales revenue will be set aside in a separate account for
reparations.
The KRG has invited independent bodies to observe the sales and export
process in line with the KRG’s commitment to transparency. KRG also
hopes that officials from SOMO (the federal Iraqi oil marketing
organization) accept KRG’s invitation to observe the process.
The KRG will continue to exert its rights of export and sell oil
independently of SOMO but remains committed to negotiate in good faith
with its counterparts in Baghdad to reach a comprehensive settlement on
oil issues within the framework of Iraq’s Constitution. The KRG has worked tirelessly with its international partners and
investors to create new pathways to prosperity and economic development
for the people of Kurdistan and Iraq and is ready to become a reliable
and stable source of energy both for its immediate neighbours and
international markets.

The Kurds can sale their oil because (a) they're semi-autonomous and (b)
no national oil & gas law has been passed. They also have strong
footing in that Nouri's trolling for support to attempt a third term as
prime minister. He did not sweep the April 30th election and does not
have enough seats in Parliament with his State of Law alone to be named
prime minister-designate. So as he attempts to find supporters and with
the Kurds having a number of seats in the Parliament, he can't afford
to tick them off. (The Economist says State of Law has 92 seats in Parliament and the Kurds have "over fifty.")

The three major parties in the KRG are Massoud Barzani's KDP, Jalal
Talabani's PUK and Goran (Goran bested the PUK in the fall 2013
provincial elections). From Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's party
comes a new proposal.

Rudaw reports
PUK "senior leader" Malal Bakhtyrar spoke yesterday at Duhok University
and declared, "If the constitution isn't going to solve it, then let us
annex the Kurdish territories to the Kurdish Region." That's a pretty
major suggestion/call.

Oil rich Kirkuk is also disputed Kirkuk. Both the KRG and the central
government out of Baghdad insist they have true claim to Kirkuk.

How to settle the dispute?

The 2005 Iraqi Constitution outlined it in Article 140: Census and referendum in the province.

Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister in 2006 and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

But he never implemented Article 140. The Constitution said the prime
minister had to by the end of 2007. Nouri ignored it. In 2010, when he
came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya and couldn't cobble together
needed support for a second term, the US government brokered The Erbil
Agreement which was a legal contract signed by Nouri and leaders of
other political blocs. They gave him a second term and, in exchange, he
promised (in writing) to give them certain things. The Kurds wanted
Article 140 implemented. Nouri agreed in writing.

But he never implemented it.

Now a PUK leader is tired of waiting and issues a call at a time when
PUK leader Jalal Talabani clearly cannot respond to the call or tamp
down on the call.

That's because December 2012, Iraqi
President Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012,
he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently.

He may have been right about numbers -- he argued Bully Boy Bush should
be planning to send more troops into Iraq. He argued for more US troops
to be sent into Iraq.

That's really not "right about the Iraq War." Being right about the
Iraq War was being correct about the chaos and violence it would
unleash, noting that it was a war based on lies. That's being right.